| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
likely to appear in for head or match arm
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Adrian <adrian.iosdev@gmail.com>
|
|
Handle attempts to have multiple `cfg`d tail expressions
When encountering code that seems like it might be trying to have multiple tail expressions depending on `cfg` information, suggest alternatives that will success to parse.
```rust
fn foo() -> String {
#[cfg(feature = "validation")]
[1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>()
#[cfg(not(feature = "validation"))]
String::new()
}
```
```
error: expected `;`, found `#`
--> $DIR/multiple-tail-expr-behind-cfg.rs:5:64
|
LL | #[cfg(feature = "validation")]
| ------------------------------ only `;` terminated statements or tail expressions are allowed after this attribute
LL | [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>()
| ^ expected `;` here
LL | #[cfg(not(feature = "validation"))]
| - unexpected token
|
help: add `;` here
|
LL | [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>();
| +
help: alternatively, consider surrounding the expression with a block
|
LL | { [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>() }
| + +
help: it seems like you are trying to provide different expressions depending on `cfg`, consider using `if cfg!(..)`
|
LL ~ if cfg!(feature = "validation") {
LL ~ [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>()
LL ~ } else if cfg!(not(feature = "validation")) {
LL ~ String::new()
LL + }
|
```
Fix #106020.
r? `@oli-obk`
|
|
Recover `dyn` and `impl` after `for<...>`
Recover `dyn` and `impl` after `for<...>` in types. Reuses the logic for parsing bare trait objects, so it doesn't fix cases like `for<'a> dyn Trait + dyn Trait` or anything, but that seems somewhat of a different issue.
Parsing recovery logic is a bit involved, but I couldn't find a way to simplify it.
Fixes #117882
|
|
|
|
Suggest field typo through derefs
Take into account implicit dereferences when suggesting fields.
```
error[E0609]: no field `longname` on type `Arc<S>`
--> $DIR/suggest-field-through-deref.rs:10:15
|
LL | let _ = x.longname;
| ^^^^^^^^ help: a field with a similar name exists: `long_name`
```
CC https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78374#issuecomment-719564114
|
|
Rollup of 7 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #117338 (Remove asmjs)
- #117549 (Use `copied` instead of manual `map`)
- #117745 (Emit smir)
- #117964 (When using existing fn as module, don't claim it doesn't exist)
- #118006 (clarify `fn discriminant` guarantees: only free lifetimes may get erased)
- #118016 (Add stable mir members to triagebot config)
- #118022 (Miri subtree update)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Remove asmjs
Fulfills [MCP 668](https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/668).
`asmjs-unknown-emscripten` does not work as-specified, and lacks essential upstream support for generating asm.js, so it should not exist at all.
|
|
More detail when expecting expression but encountering bad macro argument
On nested macro invocations where the same macro fragment changes fragment type from one to the next, point at the chain of invocations and at the macro fragment definition place, explaining that the change has occurred.
Fix #71039.
```
error: expected expression, found pattern `1 + 1`
--> $DIR/trace_faulty_macros.rs:49:37
|
LL | (let $p:pat = $e:expr) => {test!(($p,$e))};
| ------- -- this is interpreted as expression, but it is expected to be pattern
| |
| this macro fragment matcher is expression
...
LL | (($p:pat, $e:pat)) => {let $p = $e;};
| ------ ^^ expected expression
| |
| this macro fragment matcher is pattern
...
LL | test!(let x = 1+1);
| ------------------
| | |
| | this is expected to be expression
| in this macro invocation
|
= note: when forwarding a matched fragment to another macro-by-example, matchers in the second macro will see an opaque AST of the fragment type, not the underlying tokens
= note: this error originates in the macro `test` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
|
|
Tweak error and move tests
r? `@Nilstrieb`
Split off #117565.
|
|
|
|
When encountering code that seems like it might be trying to have
multiple tail expressions depending on `cfg` information, suggest
alternatives that will success to parse.
```rust
fn foo() -> String {
#[cfg(feature = "validation")]
[1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>()
#[cfg(not(feature = "validation"))]
String::new()
}
```
```
error: expected `;`, found `#`
--> $DIR/multiple-tail-expr-behind-cfg.rs:5:64
|
LL | #[cfg(feature = "validation")]
| ------------------------------ only `;` terminated statements or tail expressions are allowed after this attribute
LL | [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>()
| ^ expected `;` here
LL | #[cfg(not(feature = "validation"))]
| - unexpected token
|
help: add `;` here
|
LL | [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>();
| +
help: alternatively, consider surrounding the expression with a block
|
LL | { [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>() }
| + +
help: it seems like you are trying to provide different expressions depending on `cfg`, consider using `if cfg!(..)`
|
LL ~ if cfg!(feature = "validation") {
LL ~ [1, 2, 3].iter().map(|c| c.to_string()).collect::<String>()
LL ~ } else if cfg!(not(feature = "validation")) {
LL ~ String::new()
LL + }
|
```
Fix #106020.
|
|
|
|
Take into account implicit dereferences when suggesting fields.
```
error[E0609]: no field `longname` on type `Arc<S>`
--> $DIR/suggest-field-through-deref.rs:10:15
|
LL | let _ = x.longname;
| ^^^^^^^^ help: a field with a similar name exists: `long_name`
```
CC https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/78374#issuecomment-719564114
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partially address #71039.
|
|
Handle and recover `match expr { pat >= { arm } }`.
|
|
|
|
Catch stray `{` in let-chains
Fixes #117766
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recover from incorrectly ordered/duplicated function keywords
Fixes #115714
|
|
Give a better diagnostic for missing parens in Fn* bounds
Fixes #108109
It would be nice to try and recover here, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort, especially as the bounds on the recovered function would be incorrect.
|
|
When we have a resolution error when looking at a fully qualified path
on a type, look for all associated functions on inherent impls that
return `Self` and mention them to the user.
Fix #69512.
|
|
Recover from missing param list in function definitions
Addresses the other issue mentioned in #108109
|
|
|
|
|
|
When encountering unclosed delimiters during lexing, check for diff markers
Fix #116252.
|
|
Trying to use C-variadics in a const function would previously fail with
an error like "destructor of `VaListImpl<'_>` cannot be evaluated at
compile-time".
Add an explicit check for const C-variadics to provide a clearer error:
"functions cannot be both `const` and C-variadic".
|
|
If a function incorrectly contains multiple `...` args, and is also not
foreign or `unsafe extern "C"`, only emit the latter error once.
|
|
Fix #116252.
|
|
Eat close paren if capture_cfg to avoid unbalanced parens
Fixes #116781
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Properly restore snapshot when failing to recover parsing ternary
If the recovery parsed an expression, then failed to eat a `:`, it would return `false` without restoring the snapshot. Fix this by always restoring the snapshot when returning `false`.
Draft for now because I'd like to try and improve this recovery further.
Fixes #117208
|
|
|
|
|
|
When encountering code like `f::<f::<f::<f::<f::<f::<f::<f::<...` with
unmatched closing angle brackets, add a linear check that avoids the
exponential behavior of the parse recovery mechanism.
Fix #117080.
|
|
|
|
report `unused_import` for empty reexports even it is pub
Fixes #116032
An easy fix. r? `@petrochenkov`
(Discovered this issue while reviewing #115993.)
|
|
Avoid a `track_errors` by bubbling up most errors from `check_well_formed`
I believe `track_errors` is mostly papering over issues that a sufficiently convoluted query graph can hit. I made this change, while the actual change I want to do is to stop bailing out early on errors, and instead use this new `ErrorGuaranteed` to invoke `check_well_formed` for individual items before doing all the `typeck` logic on them.
This works towards resolving https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/97477 and various other ICEs, as well as allowing us to use parallel rustc more (which is currently rather limited/bottlenecked due to the very sequential nature in which we do `rustc_hir_analysis::check_crate`)
cc `@SparrowLii` `@Zoxc` for the new `try_par_for_each_in` function
|
|
|
